GRASSLEY: Last night I met with Nancy Sutley, the chair of the
Council of Environment Quality. That is an organization within the
White House involved in policy but not in day-to-day decision making
in the area of the environment.
I wanted to meet with her because she's a very important player
on environment. I continued to press on her that the burdens being
placed on producers in agriculture who are, by nature, good stewards
of the land, water, and livestock, are resulting in increased cost to
farmers at a time of low prices, high input costs, and lower demand.
I reiterated the four points that I brought up with President
Obama a couple weeks ago about indirect land use, fugitive dust,
greenhouse gases, and livestock producers, and point source pollution
permits. Remember, I discussed that with the president when I was
down there to discuss health care.
The points that I made to the President and to Nancy are of
tremendous concern to farmers across the country. She listened to my
concerns and appeared to be understanding but couldn't provide many
concrete assurances as to what would be done. We need to keep the
pressure on EPA and the Obama administration to ensure that these issues are at the front of the minds of these decision makers when we make decisions on these matters.
Second and last issue, the Finance Committee is going to hold a
hearing on the Panama Free Trade Agreement. It's going to be
Thursday. At present, more than 99 percent of Panama's agricultural
exports enter the United States market, leave it duty free. Yes. Yet
less than 40 percent of U.S. agricultural exports have duty-free
access into Panama.
This agreement is going to level the playing field for the Iowa
commodities. Panama's tariffs that reach as high as 80 percent for
pork, 40 percent corn, 30 percent beef will be phased down to zero.
That's what we mean by a level playing field.
The agreement will lock in Panama's current zero tariffs on
imports of U.S. soybeans. It is my hope that Obama will soon send to
Congress the legislation implementing the U.S.-Panama Free Trade
Agreement so that we can work quickly to implement this agreement.
The longer we waited, the longer Iowa farm products are being
denied the benefits of the agreement. Sam Carney, a pork
producer from Adair and president-elect of the National Pork Producers
Council and past president of the Iowa Pork Producers Association,
will testify at the hearing that we have on the Panama Free Trade
Agreement.
Dan, Successful Farming?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
Yesterday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee starting
marking up the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation. And I
wondered about two things. First, from your vantage point if it seems
likely that the House will actually pass that bill.
QUESTION: And, two, if it does, what will its fate likely be in
the Senate?
GRASSLEY: Well, I think it will pass the House if they're
inclined to move ahead. The only thing that could defeat it is if
there's a grass-roots statement of opposition based upon the $3,000
that it's going to cost a family of four, which is another way of
saying utility bills for the most part but other energy costs are
going to go up tremendously.
So it's a tax every time you turn on your light switch. Now,
this is a terrible -- a terrible cost to families. And if that comes
through, it might be stopped. But short of that, they are guaranteed,
probably, passage.
In the Senate, because it takes 60 votes and there's more concern
about this economic impact, negative economic impact that this is
going to have on our economy, it's -- I don't think the way it's
passing the House it would pass the Senate.
But, you know, I don't know for sure because I don't serve
on those committees. Although, I am involved with the Finance
Committee that has something to do with the cap-and-trade pact. My
approach to the global warming issue is nuclear energy, number one,
because nuclear is non-polluting, and we need to speed up permitting
and licensing in that area so it doesn't take 13 years to get us on
line because that will do a lot to clean up CO2.
The other thing is that whatever we do on CO2, we ought to do --
be done in an international agreement because, you see, we're in a
situation where if we pass something all by ourselves, you're going to
see more businesses, say, closed, moved to China. And the reason
you're going to see that is for the very same reason that I've said so
many times. And that's that when we make it more costly to
manufacture in the United States and China's not covered the same way,
we're going to lose more or all of our manufacturing to China.
That's why I've been an advocate for an international agreement
so all of us are playing on the same level playing field. I think we
ought to do what we can to preserve jobs in America, and I know that
there's going to be some green jobs created when we go the global
warming route, but not enough jobs to offset the jobs that are going
to be lost in manufacturing.
Tom Rider?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
Senator, one of the ag groups, the Organization for Competitive
Markets is expected to visit with you guys in Washington, D.C.
today to talk about their mission on -- going against anti-competitive
markets and working for better anti-trust laws. And we've also been
hearing the Obama administration intends to take a more aggressive
approach in anti-trust enforcement. And I know you've had legislation
in that area before.
Have you visited with the Obama folks or the OCM folks about this
recently?
GRASSLEY: I think not visits with any of them except when there
were people up for confirmation to the Justice Department. And I
bring up the issues of -- which my feeling -- that there's not a lot
of understanding of agricultural anti-trust and anti-competitive
activity within the Justice Department and that there ought to be more
aggressive use of anti-trust law in agriculture than there has been in
the past, both under Democrat and Republican administrations.
So I'm very pleased that Ms. Varney, who is the head of that
division of Justice, is -- has, on her own volition, come out in
support of doing more anti-trust work in the area of environment -- I
mean, in the area of agriculture. And so I find that very -- I find
it very satisfactory, but it's almost a shock to me that we'd hear it
without our pressing them on it.
So I look forward to what they're doing in this area,
particularly, in agriculture because, you know, I'm a free-market
person, but free markets are based upon competition. And I'm against
government regulation. I know you have to have some government
regulation, so I am not against all government regulation, but
sometimes I think we have too much of it.
But anti-trust laws, I don't consider regulation. I consider
them being a referee in the free-market system to make sure that
there's competition so we don't need government regulation.
QUESTION: Do you think this will help you in getting your
legislation passed?
GRASSLEY: Yes, I would think so.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
GRASSLEY: Ken Anderson?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
Senator Johanns of Nebraska has asked the USDA to add an animal
ID listening session in Omaha, and there's concern from some ag groups
that the Midwest has been skipped in this process of having listening
sessions. How do you feel about that?
GRASSLEY: I have been concerned about that myself. I'm
concerned that we have not had more where I consider family farms to
be the center of agriculture, and that's the Midwest more than most
parts of the country. And so such a response by Johanns I would back
up. And I would give my view on animal ID.
It's most often proposed as an extension of health, of making
sure that we have healthy food, healthy and safe food. So, you know,
we've had government paying for inspection of meet at plants. And so
traceability of disease back to the farm is a public interest. And so
it ought to be paid for out of taxpayer's money the same way that meat
inspection and other food inspection is paid for, although, there is
some times that we have had kind of an assessment for that.
But in meat inspection, we haven't. And since animals are meat,
I say we ought to take the simple principle that we use at packing
plants all the way back to the farm to make sure that we have a
situation where farmers aren't paying for something that's in the
public's interest and not just in the farmer's interest.
Ken Root?
QUESTION: I have a question, but I'd like to follow on that. It
sounds to me like you feel like it should be mandatory then for
everyone to do it.
GRASSLEY: Well, we have mandatory meat inspection. In other
words, Chuck Grassley sells his cattle -- I don't have cattle, but if
I sold my cattle to the packing plant, and we pay for the -- the
taxpayers pay for the inspection, if there was something that wasn't
fit, my cattle could be turned back at that point if they were not
safe for slaughter.
So if they aren't safe for slaughter, you know, how far back do
you go with that? Well, you can't only go back to Chuck Grassley if
you don't have traceability further back. And so if it's in the
interest to make sure that my cow is not accepted in the first place
because it might not be safe food, then don't you think that principle
ought to go back a little bit further?
That's what I believe.
QUESTION: Senator, my question regards ethanol and the EPA
extending their comment period on whether or not they should expand
the percentage blended in gasoline. Do you think this is a positive
sign?
GRASSLEY: Well, it's difficult to know why that might be the
case. And I don't have a reason for it. But as long as there's
nothing negative that comes out of the comments thus far and they need
a little bit more time as long as it's not a stalling tactic, I'm not
going to worry about just a little bit more time. Did they say how
long it was going to be? Another 30 days?
QUESTION: I believe into July. I'm not sure. Some other
broadcaster may be able to help out there.
GRASSLEY: Well, that wouldn't be -- that wouldn't be too bad.
You know, if we get a -- if we get a ruling -- this is on the going
above E-ten. Is that what you're talking about?
QUESTION: That's correct.
GRASSLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: They still have until December 1st to make the
decision.
GRASSLEY: Yes. If they -- anything that we can get done before
the next big jump in mandate, which I think is 11 billion gallons next
year, I think would be satisfactory.
QUESTION: Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Stacia?
Gary, Arkansas?
QUESTION: I'm just reading this morning, Senator, that the CEO
of JBF Swift is predicting before the end of the year that Japan will
go to the 30-month of age requirement for cattle from the United
States to supply beef that other Asian nations use instead of its
current 21-month limit.
Have you heard any talk on how those negotiations are going and
whether Japan is ultimately going to raise its age limit on beef?
GRASSLEY: I have not heard that, but there may be this factor
involved in their coming to that conclusion. A lot of other
countries, Peru, Korea knows about our concerns about that direction.
A lot of other countries are going to the 30-month deal. And, also,
you want it remember that the OIE is at that point.
And so Japan is probably out there -- going to be out there
isolated all by themselves in a trade issue where they're not
justified and they don't have any other backing by other countries.
So I would hope that they're going to move in that direction. I have
not heard that they are.
And in a sense, your question is good news as far as I'm
concerned.
QUESTION: All right. Also, we had the news of yet another case
of BSE in Canada. And the -- the (inaudible) folks this once again
demonstrated we shouldn't be importing cattle from Canada. Do you see
the situation with Canada changing at all, or is our relationship with
them on cattle and beef trade going to remain the same?
GRASSLEY: Well, it's going to remain the same. But I just
returned from Quebec City or a couple hours east of Quebec City where
we had our annual meeting. This is the 50th annual meeting between
Canadian parliamentarians and U.S. congressmen.
You know, every other year, we go up there, and every other year,
they come down here. So it was up there Friday night, Saturday,
Sunday, and Monday. And one of the things that the parliamentarians
were talking about that partly answers your question from their point
of view, not from my point of view because I think things are going to
continue as they are. But they were raising tremendous opposition to
our COOL legislation and spoke about in non-agricultural areas about
protectionism growing in the United States.
So I think we've been sending some signals that they don't
understand up there, but regardless, that is their concern. Now, my
concern is that we just continue as we are. And I don't think I
disagree with the Canadian view in a sense that we have pretty much an
integrated North American market that -- that the border for trade
doesn't mean a whole lot.
Of course, they use that argument when they objected to some of
our COOL legislation and see that as at least how it's being enforced
as interfering with that principle of an integrated market. But I
think, for the most part, we do have an integrated market. But I
think it takes a while to make sure it works out exactly the way it
is.
Now, if I'd known about BSE, you know, I could have brought that
up this last weekend. I didn't bring things like that up. But I
think that we are going to be concerned about BSE not entering the
United States, but the step to which they pretty much know where
cattle originate from, it seems to me that it's going to be pretty
isolated, and we can have confidence.
I'm going to rely upon our own Department of Agriculture to make
the ultimate determination. And if there's fear of food and it's
based on science and not non-tariff trade barriers, you know, I would
have to say we have a right to move ahead. But any country has the
right to keep out things like that.
We're trying to make the point to China that they shouldn't keep
out our pork because of H1N1. But they're doing it. Maybe they're
doing it for non-tariff trade barriers or maybe they're doing it just
because they're uninformed.
QUESTION: OK. Thank you.
END
-30-